El Duque? Contreras (Nobodyd claim him)? to make them eligible for trade?

Daver

08-03-2005, 08:36 PM

If I were Kenny I would put the entire forty man roster on waivers.

These are revocable waivers, you lose no one, but you do see where the interest is from other teams.

PaleHoseGeorge

08-03-2005, 08:39 PM

If I were Kenny I would put the entire forty man roster on waivers.

These are revocable waivers, you lose no one, but you do see where the interest is from other teams.

The Sox once actually did this back in the 40's for the exact same reason you noted. I believe it was done by GM Frank "Trader" Lane. The Sox didn't have a lot of talent to trade back then.
:cool:

Daver

08-03-2005, 08:43 PM

The Sox once actually did this back in the 40's for the exact same reason you noted. I believe it was done by GM Frank "Trader" Lane. The Sox didn't have a lot of talent to trade back then.
:cool:

Roland Hemond put the entire twenty five man roster on waivers back in the day too.

downstairs

08-03-2005, 08:46 PM

If I were Kenny I would put the entire forty man roster on waivers.

These are revocable waivers, you lose no one, but you do see where the interest is from other teams.

Yeah.... but wouldn't the other teams get the point, and then it would be no different than them calling Kenny up and saying they're interested in someone?

I mean... if you see an entire team on waivers, you probably don't honestly think you'll nab any of them.

bigdommer

08-03-2005, 08:52 PM

Yeah.... but wouldn't the other teams get the point, and then it would be no different than them calling Kenny up and saying they're interested in someone?

I mean... if you see an entire team on waivers, you probably don't honestly think you'll nab any of them.

Or Kenny could use reverse logic. Other teams will think it's a hoax, and the players could clear waivers for the intended trade partner.

PaleHoseGeorge

08-03-2005, 08:57 PM

Obviously it is a lot easier to put the whole roster on waivers and wait for nibbles than to call up 29 other GM's and express an interest in doing a deal for 25 different guys.

Maybe they could do a Dutch auction on eBay?
:wink:

Optipessimism

08-03-2005, 09:19 PM

It would be interesting to put Willie Harris and Ross Gload on there just to see what they are worth, if anything, to other teams.

GregoryEtc

08-03-2005, 10:58 PM

This idea isn't as crazy as you might think. I think a couple years ago I remember hearing that like 80% of ALL major leaguers were put on waivers. The thinking being that there is literally NO risk in putting a guy on waivers and it frees up ALL your options down the road.

I do love the story from a couple years ago when the Yankees grabbed Canseco from TB's waiver wire just to keep someone else from getting him when they didn't even want him thinking that TB would retract him. They didn't and King George was stuck paying Jose for the rest of the season to sit on their bench.

Madvora

08-04-2005, 08:43 AM

Realistically I could see Hernandez, Contreras and Everett going on waivers. If KW has an option to upgrade to another starter or get a guy like Griffey, it might cost Everett.

ChiSoxBobette

08-04-2005, 09:17 AM

If I were Kenny I would put the entire forty man roster on waivers.

These are revocable waivers, you lose no one, but you do see where the interest is from other teams.

Yeah, that would really help a team thats trying to get into the playoffs/WS.
How would these guys feel if that happened, playing all year the way they have and then the GM puts them on waivers and I don't think it matters what kind of waiver those are.

Goose

08-04-2005, 10:15 AM

From what I read on the waiver process, it is not uncommon to place the whole 40 man roster on waivers during August. A search on "Baseball Waivers" on Google came up with an ESPN article (I know...) and Stark says

Virtually every player in the major leagues will be placed on waivers this month, whether a team intends to trade that player or not. If nothing else, the sheer volume of names can at least disguise players whom clubs do want to sneak through so they can be dealt.

Once a player is put on waivers, how long do teams have to "claim" them? Is it all the way until August 31? I would think it has to be a set number of days.

VeeckAsInWreck

08-04-2005, 05:31 PM

I believe it was last year or the year before that the Red Sawx put Manny on waivers and yet there were no takers.

Ol' No. 2

08-04-2005, 07:37 PM

Once a player is put on waivers, how long do teams have to "claim" them? Is it all the way until August 31? I would think it has to be a set number of days.Three days. But IIRC, you can only put a certain number of players on waivers at one time. Three, I think.

The other argument against this is that you can only pull a player back once. So if you put him on waivers and someone claims him and you pull him back, it effectively ends the possibility that you can trade him.

mr_genius

08-04-2005, 07:45 PM

If KW has an option to upgrade to another starter or get a guy like Griffey, it might cost Everett.

we're not getting Griffey, he won't plaly for the Sox

btw, Everett isn't worth much on the trade market. teams that are giving up good players are out of contention and want young talent.

Rocklive99

08-04-2005, 11:01 PM

we're not getting Griffey, he won't plaly for the Sox

btw, Everett isn't worth much on the trade market. teams that are giving up good players are out of contention and want young talent.

It won't matter what he wants if you claim him, and I'd do it if the money was similar either way

That's kind of silly (imo) to not want to play somewhere because of where they have ST, you'd be more satisfied with a loser? I think he cited family reasons, but come on, you'll get less than an extra month with them? You might as well have thm travel with you or move them to the team you play for if it's that important

Mohoney

08-04-2005, 11:43 PM

Three days. But IIRC, you can only put a certain number of players on waivers at one time. Three, I think.

I thought it was 7 per day, but I could very well be wrong.

wdelaney72

08-04-2005, 11:53 PM

we're not getting Griffey, he won't plaly for the Sox

btw, Everett isn't worth much on the trade market. teams that are giving up good players are out of contention and want young talent.

Griffey went to the Reds in 2000, which makes him a 5 / 10 player. I'm guessing that applies to waiver trades as well. If that is the case, if he doesn't want to come to the Sox, he doesn't have to.

Griffey has won NOTHING in his career, plus a return to the American League could be good for his career. I see no reason why he wouldn't want to come to the White Sox.

Cincinnati would do this move for the sole purpose of dumping his contract. They would not want Carl Everett, they'd want Sweeney or Anderson and a pitching prospect... given the impact that Griffey could have on our offense, I'd try and make this happen.